“Ovidius” University Annals, Economic Sciences Series Volume XVIII, Issue 2 /2018 The Evolution of the Turnover and of the Gross Profit Recorded by Economic Agents in the Main Towns of Constanta County, between 2016 and 2017 Jugănaru Mariana “Ovidius” University of Constanta, Faculty of Economic Sciences [email protected] Abstract Any company is concerned about the size and evolution of its activity in order to take the right decisions on the future orientation of its activity, in correlation with the evolution of the external environment, where it exists and operates. Based on this approach, economic operators calculate different economic indicators, according to the requirements of the national legislation and European directives, whereby they express the volume and in some cases the structure of their economic activity. This study analyzes the size and dynamics of the activity carried out by the economic agents that operated in the main towns of Constanta County, in 2016 and 2017. This study is particularly important because, by processing a database containing values of several microeconomic indicators, we obtained a dynamic analysis on the evolution of the main economic performances of the companies that operate in the towns of Constanta county, during 2016 – 2017. Key words: turnover, gross profit, evolution, towns, analyze J.E.L. classification: C01, C10,C40, M10, M20, M21, O11, O12 1. Introduction The study aims to draw attention to the fact that a statistical database on the size of some economic indicators in the years 2016 and 2017, processed with quantitative statistical methods, can provide as a result both quantitative information about the size and the evolution of the economic activity, as well as comparative interpretations only between the cities from Constanta County. 2. Theoretical background The economic literature states that the purpose of the activity carried out by any economic agent in a market economy is to obtain profit or, in other words to maximize profit. The importance of the profit indicator can be highlighted in several ways. Thus, it is known that the decisions made at the level of economic organizations aim to obtain profit; then establishing / determining / expressing efficiency depends on the profit achieved; the ranking on the market and the image of an economic agent are strongly influenced by its ability to achieve profit, but also by the size of this indicator 3. Research Method This study is a quantitative analysis of the size and evolution of the "turnover" and "gross profit" indicators, for the period 2016-2017, achieved by the economic agents that operate only in the towns of Constanta County. ( Jugănaru,1998; Jugănaru,2000) 623 “Ovidius” University Annals, Economic Sciences Series Volume XVIII, Issue 2 /2018 The data were selected from a large database, i.e. from 19.125 companies registered in 2016 and 20.029 companies registered in 2017, including a series of economic indicators that companies are required to transmit (Accounting Law no. 82/1991 with subsequent amendments and completions, Official Gazette no. 902/11.12.2014, Matiş., Pop. 2007; OMFP 1802/2014). By processing the data, we determined the average values, the indices and the rhythms of change. (Aivaz.2007, pp. 329 ; Aivaz.2007, pp. 99 ). We also used the SPSS statistical software for the analysis ( Field, 2009). 4. Data, results and discussion The first step of the study was made by calculating the average values of the "Net turnover" indicator, recorded in each town in Constanta County in 2016 and 2017. Based on the individual values achieved by each company, the average value of the analyzed indicator was calculated, per each town, for the two years. Table no. 1 The average value of the “net turnover” indicator, per town, in Constanta County, in 2016 and 2017 Average No. of Average No. of Town Net turnover, companies Town Net turnover, companies 2016 2016 2017 2017 Constanta 1.931.420,24 11538 Constanta 1.915.753,87 11972 Cernavoda 1.476.777,04 322 Cernavoda 1.094.443,93 324 Eforie Nord 599.831,81 286 Eforie Nord 658.761,98 297 Eforie Sud 753.080,78 169 Eforie Sud 714.339,25 178 Hârsova 1.633.322,41 135 Hârsova 1.813.006,67 141 Mangalia 3.043.498,81 957 Mangalia 1.757.125,21 991 Medgidia 804.590,92 762 Medgidia 872.400,50 768 Murfatlar 2.384.891,62 134 Murfatlar 2.329.345,31 138 Navodari 13.313.046,10 727 Navodari 14.622.929,19 835 Negru Voda 1.545.126,42 38 Negru Voda 1.349.743,41 39 Baneasa 1.001.992,25 12 Baneasa 928.703,96 23 Ovidiu 1.508.261,73 371 Ovidiu 1.528.854,14 383 Techirghiol 962.402,81 199 Techirghiol 843.632,80 204 TOTAL 15.650 TOTAL 16.293 Source: Author’s own processing by SPSS The data presented in Table 1 show that in 2017, 16.293 companies operated in the analyzed towns, compared to 15.650 in 2016. There is an absolute increase of 643 in the number of companies or a relative increase of 4.11%. Table no.2 The absolute and relative evolution of the "net turnover" indicator, per town, in Constanta County, between 2016 and 2017 Absolute change Rhythm No. crt. Town Index% Turnover % 1 Constanta -15.666,37 99,19 -0,81 2 Cernavoda -382.333,11 74,11 -25,89 3 Eforie Nord 58.930,17 109,82 9,82 4 Eforie Sud -38.741,53 94,85 -5,14 5 Hârsova 179.684,25 111,00 11,00 6 Mangalia -1.286.373,60 57,73 -42,27 7 Medgidia 67.809,58 108,43 8,43 624 “Ovidius” University Annals, Economic Sciences Series Volume XVIII, Issue 2 /2018 8 Murfatlar -55.546,31 97,67 -2,33 9 Navodari 1.309.883,10 109,84 9,84 10 Negru Voda -195.383,01 87,35 -12,65 11 Baneasa -73.288,29 92,69 -7,31 12 Ovidiu 20.592,41 101,36 1,36 13 Techirghiol -118.770,01 87,66 -12,34 Source: Author’s own processing by SPSS The data in Table 2 show the absolute and relative values of the changes in the average of the “net turnover” indicator, per town, in Constanta County, between 2016 and 2017. The interpretation of these values allows us to assess the economic activity in each town. Figure no. 1 The evolution of the “turnover” indicator, between 2016 and 2017, in terms of absolute values Turnover 20000000,00 15000000,00 10000000,00 5000000,00 0,00 2016 2017 Source: Author’s own processing by EXCEL Afterwards, we calculated the average values of the "gross profit" indicator, per town, in Constanta County, in 2016 and 2017. Further, based on the individual values achieved by each company, we calculated the average value of the analyzed indicator, per town, for the two years. Table no. 3 Average of the "Gross Profit" indicator, per town, in Constanta County, in 2016 and 2017 Average No. of Average No. of Town Gross profit companies Town Gross profit companies 2016 2016 2017 2017 Constanta 116.492,46 11538 Constanta 116.475,82 11971 Baneasa 40.116,92 12 Baneasa 68.209,61 23 Cernavoda 1.028,59 322 Cernavoda -95.147,03 324 Eforie Nord 88.300,54 286 Eforie Nord 119.892,57 297 Eforie Sud 76.534,75 169 Eforie Sud 77.786,34 178 Hârsova 130.658,90 135 Hârsova 168.965,36 141 Mangalia -425.403,02 957 Mangalia 227.177,12 991 Medgidia 80.071,10 762 Medgidia 55.240,43 768 Murfatlar -569.940,87 134 Murfatlar -248.200,04 138 Navodari 124.885,86 727 Navodari 619.335,60 835 Negru Voda 399.225,47 38 Negru Voda 354.152,44 39 Ovidiu 134.181, 3 371 Ovidiu 100.638,13 383 Techirghiol 60.472,61 199 Techirghiol 47.329,78 204 Source: Author’s own processing by SPSS 625 “Ovidius” University Annals, Economic Sciences Series Volume XVIII, Issue 2 /2018 Table no. 4 The absolute and relative evolution of the “Gross Profit” indicator, per town, in Constanta County between 2016 and 2017 Absolute change Index Rhythm Nr .crt. Town Gross profit % % 1 Constanta -16,64 99,99 -0,01 2 Băneasa 28.092,69 170,03 70,03 3 Cernavoda -96.175,61 4 Eforie Nord 1.592,03 135,78 35,78 5 Eforie Sud 1.251,59 101,64 1,64 6 Hârsova 38.306,46 129,32 29,32 7 Mangalia -652.580,14 8 Medgidia -24.830,67 68,98 -31,01 9 Murfatlar -321.740,83 43,55 -56,45 10 Năvodari 494.449,74 495,92 395,92 11 Negru Voda -45.073,04 88,71 -11,29 12 Ovidiu -33.543,20 75,00 -25,00 13 Techirghiol -13.142,83 78.27 -21.73 Source: Author’s own processing by SPSS The interpretation of the values calculated and presented in Table 4 – representing the absolute and relative change in the average of the “gross profit” indicator – allows us to assess the evolution of the economic activity in each town. The data presented in the four tables reflect the evolution of the economic profile of each town, over the analyzed period, considering the two analyzed indicators. Constanta, the most important city of the county, recorded a decrease of 15.666,37 RON in the absolute value and a decrease of 0.81% in the relative value of the “turnover” indicator. Moreover, as far as the “gross profit” indicator is concerned, it recorded an insignificant decrease of 16,64 RON in absolute value and of -0,01% in relative value.